[jcifs] threaded network crawler code examples (transport pro blem)

[Allen, Michael B (RSCH)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dan Dumont [SMTP:Dan at canofsleep.com]
> 
> Having the variable static is not just a minor problem.   I looked through
> the code.  You never increase maxmpxcount, the only time you ever modify it
> is here
> 
> negotiatedMaxMpxCount = client.maxMpxCount < server.maxMpxCount ?
> client.maxMpxCount : server.maxMpxCount;
> 
> Take the lesser of the two
> 
> mpxCtrl.maxMpxCount = negotiatedMaxMpxCount < 1 ? 1 : negotiatedMaxMpxCount;
> 
> If its less then one, set it to one, otherwise leave it alone.
> 
> And that will never result in an upping of the count. So once you've hit a
> bad server, you are screwed, for the rest of the index.   Regardless of how
> many dead hosts you hit. EVERY live host from then on out will be executed
> one after the other.
> 
	There was a scientist name Richard Feynman who wrote some really funny
	books. He was very knowledgeable in quantum mechanics and won the
	nobel prize. In one of his funny books he wrote something like "It's ok to be
	a fool. Those people can be educated. But fools who are fakers [faker was
	an important word in this book] and parade around pretending to be
	knowledgeable are [some really bad thing, I don't remember]". At this point
	must conclude that you fall into the later category. You have absolutely no
	clue how any of this works and yet you repeatedly post statements that are
	complete nonsense. I just said an hour ago that the maxMpxCount is set
	with each negotiated host. ALSO under a normal crawling situation most
	threads are probably already negotiated and crawling some server so it
	wouldn't even phase them in the slightest. ALSO you would have to hit an
	entire block of dead addresses before this had any effect on crawling.

	It's ok to be ignorant Dan. This stuff is not easy. But don't be a faker and
	stop spreading lies on my mailing list.

	Mike